Innocence Is Irrelevant
In the article "Innocence Is Irrelevant" from the September 2017 issue of The Atlantic, Emily Yoffee wrote:
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged this reality in 2012, writing for the majority in Missouri v. Frye, a case that helped establish the right to competent counsel for defendants who are offered a plea bargain. Quoting a law-review article, Kennedy wrote, 'Horse trading [between prosecutor and defense counsel] determines who goes to jail and for how long. That is what plea bargaining is. It is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system.'
As prosecutors have accumulated power in recent decades, judges and public defenders have lost it. To induce defendants to plead, prosecutors often threaten 'the trial penalty': They make it known that defendants will face more-serious charges and harsher sentences if they take their case to court and are convicted. About 80 percent of defendants are eligible for court-appointed attorneys, including overworked public defenders who don't have the time or resources to even consider bringing more than a tiny fraction of these cases to trial. The result, one frustrated Missouri public defender complained a decade ago, is a style of defense that is nothing more than "meet 'em and greet 'em and plead 'em."
"Our system makes it a rational choice to plead guilty to something you didn't do," Maddy deLone, the executive director of the Innocence Project, told me [author Emily Yoffee].
Take a position. Is plea bargaining an effective or ineffective alternative process?
First, title your post either "Plea Bargaining Is an Effective Alternative Process" or "Plea Bargaining is Not an Effective Alternative Process."
Then, using the information gained in this module and the resources noted above, make your case. Based upon the volume of court cases, the societal implications, and the impact that plea bargaining has on the defendant, do you believe that plea bargaining represents justice? Why or why not? Be sure to build your case with factual resources.
In your response to your peers, consider how well they justified their position, making use of available resources. Consider the following questions in your response posts:
Did they support their position convincingly using appropriate resources?
Which of their points make the most sense to you, even if you made a case for the opposing viewpoint?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/
regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it's anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are 'recoded' and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller's unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pi
Sample Solution
I take the position that plea bargaining is an ineffective alternative process. This is evidenced by the fact that nearly 80% of criminal cases are resolved through plea bargaining and prosecutors have accumulated power in recent decades, resulting in defendants facing more serious charges and harsher sentences if they go to trial (Yoffee). This has led to a “meet ‘em and greet ‘em and plead ‘em” style of defense which allows innocent people to be coerced into accepting guilty pleas just so they can avoid facing the possibility of longer jail time if found guilty by a court (Yoffee).
Furthermore, as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged in his majority opinion for Missouri v. Frye, this type of horse trading between prosecutors and defense attorneys means that those without substantial resources or legal knowledge cannot afford to risk taking their cases to trial (Yoffee). The lack of fairness inherent in this system puts innocent people at risk of being wrongfully convicted, simply because they do not have access to competent counsel who could challenge the prosecution’s case against them.
Finally, even when it does result in a conviction based on a guilty plea, there is no guarantee that justice will be served. As Maddy deLone from the Innocence Project pointed out, our current system makes it a rational choice for someone to plead guilty even if they are truly innocent (Yoffee). All too often this leads to individuals serving time for crimes they never committed - something which would certainly not happen if our justice system was focused on providing equitable outcomes instead of encouraging quick resolution through plea bargaining.
Overall then, while plea bargaining may appear like an efficient way to process criminal cases quickly, its efficacy is limited due to its lack of fairness. Without significant reforms or alternatives which prioritize justice over speediness – such as abolishing mandatory minimums – we run the risk of allowing those with limited resources or legal knowledge fall victim to unfair convictions.